1. The law against murder and its death-penalty.
When the waters of the great deluge had subsided and Noah and his family found themselves once more upon the face of the solid earth—an unpeopled solitude—that which we read in Gen. 9, was beautifully in place:—“And God blessed Noah and his sons.” So long imprisoned in the ark; so long in the presence of this fearful visitation of a righteous God upon a hopelessly corrupt generation, how naturally must their view of human life take on a somber hue, and how refreshing to be assured that the Great God was still their loving Father! “God blessed them and said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth,’”—for God would have it filled again with living men. Moreover, though few and feeble, they need not fear the violence of the animal creation, for “the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth; ... into your hand are they delivered.” Then by special provision, apparently never made before, God sanctioned the use of animal flesh for human food. Yet lest this sanction should make them dangerously familiar with the shedding of blood, and tend to lesson the sacredness of human life, God solemnly forbade the use of blood for food, and then proceeded to ordain that human blood shed by ferocious animals should be avenged with their life. Then follows special legislation against murder by guilty human hands: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man.”——That this is precept and not merely prophecy is so apparent that argument in proof might seem almost an insult to the common understanding of mankind. Yet the passage has been wrested in this way from its obvious significance. It should be construed in harmony with the scope of the context. Note therefore, that its close connection with the use of animals for the food of man and with the “requiring” of human blood shed by the violence of beasts compel us to find here precept and not prediction. Still more does the historic place of this precept, standing upon the ruins of the old world and in the presence of the yet unwasted bones of thousands whose wickedness had culminated in such recklessness of human life that “the earth was filled with violence.” In the presence of such gigantic iniquity, grown up under the experiment of pardoning and not punishing the crime of murder and giving unrestrained license to bloody passion, it was pertinent to lay a new and more effectual foundation for maintaining the peace of society and the sacredness of human life. The solemn lessons of the past required, not a prediction of retributive vengeance under the social law of self-preservation, but a divine precept demanding it and enforcing it with its logical reason—that “God made man in his own image.” You may take the life of the lower animals for no higher cause than human sustenance—food for man’s wants;—but let no man put forth his hand against the blood of man, for he bears the very “image of God.”——To make this new law the more solemnly impressive, man must himself be the executioner of this divine behest—“By man shall his blood be shed.” Society itself must commit to some of its members this solemn function and they must take the murderer’s life. Nothing less can shield the life of man from bloody violence; nothing less will duly honor God’s image in man.
2. The prophecy of Noah.
In Gen. 9: 25–27 we have the first of those patriarchal utterances of prophetic sort, in various strain—blessing and not blessing—of which several examples occur subsequently, as in the case of Jacob (Gen. 49: 1–27); Moses (Deut. 33: 1–29). The form is thoroughly that of Hebrew poetry—the brief parallelism of sentiment and language being the prominent feature.——The circumstances which called out these prophetic words are given briefly in the narrative. Noah having come forth from the ark soon commenced the culture of the vine and experimented (unfortunately) in the free use of its wine. While he lay overcome and personally exposed in his tent, his younger son Ham, lost to all sense of filial duty, reported the sad spectacle. Shem and Japheth, with filial pity and with the most delicate modesty, covered his shame. When Noah awoke to consciousness and came to know what his younger son had done unto him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren. Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem, and let Canaan be servant to them. Let God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be servant to them.”——It had been previously said (v. 18), that “Ham was the father of Canaan.” What part, if any, Canaan bore in this transaction, that the curse apparently due to Ham should fall so specially on him, the narrative does not say. The offense of Ham lay in the line of his relation as a son. Perhaps it was for this reason that his punishment lay in the humiliation of his son. Be this as it may, the words were prophetic of the future relations of the posterity of Canaan to the posterity of both Shem and Japheth. The devoted nations of Canaan were terribly exterminated by the Hebrew people, sons of Shem; the remnant (e. g. the Gibeonites) were made hewers of wood and drawers of water; and in the age of Solomon, were subjected to the most severe labors. See Josh. 9: 20–27, and 2 Chron. 2: 17, 18 and 1 Chron. 22: 2.
When Noah’s prophetic eye fell on Shem, the blessings that rose to his view were too rich and grand for description. He could only give utterance to his grateful emotions and thanksgivings in the words—“Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem”! Blessed be Jehovah, the God of the covenant with his professed people, the God of all blessings, of ever-enduring love and faithfulness! What will he not do for his chosen people, brought into relations to himself so near and so dear!——In this line the sweep of his prophetic eye took in the Hebrew race—Abraham and the patriarchs; Moses and the pious kings and holy prophets; and above all, the Great Messiah—to be born of David’s line and to be the incarnation of God’s mercy to a lost world. No wonder his soul was moved to devoutest adoration—Blessed be Jehovah who reveals himself as the God of Shem!
Of Japheth he predicts enlargement in the sense of a numerous offspring—“God shall enlarge,” i. e. multiply “Japheth,” with a play on the significance of his name which signifies the enlarged one. God will verify his name and enlarge the enlarged son; in Hebrew phrase, will Japhetize Japheth.——In the last clause of this verse, the original leaves us in doubt whether the subject of the verb is God or Japheth. Grammatically it might be either—God shall dwell, or Japheth shall dwell, in the tents of Shem. In favor of making Japheth the subject are these considerations:—(a.) The verse preceding gives the prophetic destiny of Shem; this, of Japheth.——(b.) The expression is not altogether apposite when applied to God, for although God dwelt in the Hebrew temple and dwells by his Spirit in the bodies of his people, yet he is not elsewhere said to dwell in the tents of his people. The phrase leads the mind to such dwelling as may be said of men but is not said of God.——Applied to Japheth it had a most apposite and beautiful fulfillment when the Gentile races of Japheth came in as proselytes to the Hebrew communion, but far more when in the Christian age, the Jews were broken off from the old stock that the Gentiles might be grafted in, and they were; and may be almost said to have taken possession of the deserted tents of Shem as their own through all the Christian centuries to this hour. All Protestant Christendom is this day of Japheth’s line, fully at home in the tents of Shem.
A very extraordinary case of the wresting of Scripture to make it justify crime—so great a crime as the enslaving of men—is the attempt to force from this prophecy concerning Canaan a vindication of the enslaving of Africans by Americans. The wresting appears in these two broad facts:—(a.) That the Africans were not Canaanites, and therefore the prophecy said nothing about the negro race. Admitting for argument’s sake that it justified the enslaving of Canaanites, it did not in the least justify the enslaving of African negroes.——(b.) If the passage had named the African negro instead of the Canaanite, even then a prediction of what shall be might fall very far short of being a command as to what man ought to do. Prophetic predictions of war form not the least justification of war—fall utterly short of a divine command enjoining man’s duty. Predictions of the Savior’s death could never justify his murderers.
3. The genealogy of the great historic nations.
In Gen. 10 the Bible for once departs from its usual method and gives a chapter of universal history—the only one. Elsewhere it traces the history of the one nation which had “the oracles of God,” and in later ages, of the Christian church, touching the nations of the outside world only as they come into relations to the seed of Abraham or to the kingdom of Christ. But here we see the sons of Noah branching out to people the countries of the great Eastern Continent and to found the old historic nations of the earth.——Japheth whom Prophecy was to “enlarge” (Gen. 9: 27) furnished the tribes from which grew the great nations of Northern and Eastern Asia and for the whole of Europe. At first they occupied the maritime regions bordering on the Caspian, Black and Mediterranean Seas, spoken of here as “the isles of the Gentiles”—conforming to the Hebrew usage which called all maritime countries “isles.”——Next we have the sons of Ham, among whom were Nimrod, the builder of Babel; Mizraim with his seven sons who himself gave name to Egypt; Canaan whose posterity long held Palestine, and several names which appear either in the cities or the tribes of the valley of the Euphrates and of Arabia.——Shem seems to have shared with Ham the possession of the great fertile basin of the Euphrates and the Tigris—the cradle of the race—together with portions of Arabia and in general of South-western Asia.
It is a matter of some interest to know that this remarkable record of the birth of the great nations of antiquity is perfectly sustained by the universal history of all subsequent ages. Whether Chaldean or Phenician, Egyptian or Arabian, Greek or Roman, Mongol or Tartar, Indo-Germanic, Celtic, Belgic or Briton—all find the germ of their nationality in this wonderful chapter, and all concur to swell and substantiate the proof that the human race sprang from Noah and that we have no occasion to look for pre-Adamic men or for tribes that escaped the flood and have no pedigree among the sons of Noah. While it was never the purpose of divine revelation to give to any great extent the universal history of the race, it is proper to note that what it does give bears the divine stamp of truth. All historic science does it homage. All the light that comes up from the comparative study of the languages of the race helps us still to follow the track of the emigrating tribes as they diverged from the ancient home of Noah’s family. The Science of Ethnography begins with this chapter of inspiration, Gen. 10.
4. Babel and the confusion of tongues.
Gen. 11: 1–9 records a very remarkable event, of far reaching consequences toward the geographical diffusion of the race. Up to this point there was but one language—as the record has it—“one lip and one set of words,” “lip” being (perhaps) used for the mode of speaking, including pronunciation and possibly inflection; while words are the matter of language, the roots or ground-forms. The fact that the latter have been far less variable than the former, appearing to some extent in all subsequent ages throughout all the diversities of human tongues, favors this distinction.
Migrating from the Armenian hill country where the ark rested, Noah’s posterity reached the fertile plain of Shinar, halted there, and set themselves to the building of a magnificent and lofty tower. There being no stone at hand, they prepared brick, not sun-dried after the common Oriental method, but thoroughly burned for greater durability. As both consequence and proof of this durability, the supposed ruins of this great tower, known as “Birs Nimrood” [tower of Nimrod] are still extant within the area of ancient Babylon, silently witnessing alike to the labors of those fathers of the nations before their dispersion, and to the truthfulness of this sacred record.
This tower was not built for safety in case of another flood (as some have supposed) for, with such an object, a high mountain and not a plain would have been chosen for the site; it could at best have saved but few; and more than all, the record gives a very different view of the motive. This motive was consolidation—the aggregation of the masses into one vast nationality or kingdom—a thought due to the ambition of some controlling minds aspiring to power, distinction, fame. Foreseeing the tendency to dispersion they sought to forestall it, to find their own glory in having a multitude under their sway and in building monuments that could not perish. For wise reasons God blasted this scheme. Precisely what divine influence was interposed to confound the language of these men, I doubt if it is possible for us to know certainly. It is supposable that the many became restive under the domination of the few and the severe labor of this enterprise, so that diverse counsels and dissolving social bonds had some influence in blocking the progress of the work. Misunderstandings sprung up and found expression in diversities of tongue. What could be more natural when harmony gave place to discord? So this huge tower-building was arrested and men scattered abroad as they would.——The new tongues which took their rise here had ample opportunity to diverge more and more widely in subsequent ages. The immense variety in language which the history of the world discloses has been a growth—the product of subtle causes, of segregation and non-intercourse in part, and in part also no doubt of diverse mental traits and various influences of culture.
What the original language was, common to the race up to this point, has been much debated by learned men without arriving at uniform and satisfactory results. Whether it was, as some suppose, the veritable Hebrew tongue; or as others think, the Aramaic, i. e. the Chaldee; or whether it is utterly lost—these are the alternatives; but for the choice between them we can have no very positive data. Those descendants of Noah who best preserved the religious faith of the fathers would stand most aloof from the scenes of Babel, and be naturally least affected by its many-tongued controversies and its resulting confusion of speech. That they escaped these influences altogether is perhaps too much to assume.——That the Aramaic (Chaldee) tongue, closely allied to the Hebrew, held its place for ages in the valley of the Euphrates, strongly favors its claim to be, if not the very tongue of Noah, at least of the same family.——These points suggest probabilities but fall short of certainty.
ABRAHAM is one of the great men in the world’s religious history. Why he is so can not be well understood and appreciated without at least a brief view of the state of the world religiously considered at the date of his call, and the demand thence resulting for the new religious instrumentalities of which Abraham was in a sort “the head-center.”
In the age before the flood religion had never really flourished. We read of a time when “men began to call on the name of the Lord,” and something approximating toward system and concentration appears to have been introduced. But the record is silent as to any marked result except so far as it may appear in the piety of individual men, e. g. Enoch and Noah. Apparently the religious element failed even to hold its own against the on-rushing tides of worldliness. Even the sons of godly fathers formed unhallowed marriage connections, and consequently were borne rapidly down the broad current of degeneracy and moral corruption till only one family remained to represent the piety of all that generation. There was a fatal lack of moral forces.——The flood was a vigorous moral lesson in itself; and besides this, the race started afresh from the seed of this one pious family. Ten generations bring us to Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees, near the old cradle of the race. The history of religion during this period from Noah to Abraham is exceedingly meager. Gathering up the few fragmentary notices which emerge from the general darkness in the age of Abraham, we find that his father’s family in ancient Ur “served other gods” (Josh. 24: 2); that Abraham, journeying toward the south country of Palestine, sojourned awhile in Gerar and was there drawn into grave temptation by the apparent godlessness of the people, since he apologizes on this wise for representing Sarah to be his sister and not his wife: “Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s sake” (Gen. 20: 10, 11). The same temptation befell him previously in Egypt (Gen. 12: 10–20)—probably indicating the same inward thought based on the same apparent public morality. Then we have the horrible wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah where not ten righteous men could be found. And sad to say, we see a very low tone of religious and moral life in the family even of Lot, who as the nephew and special associate of Abraham should represent the better elements of society.——Akin to these special facts is the general one that the personal history of Abraham through a full century of somewhat extensive travels and various experience brings him into contact with God-fearing men in only the single case of Melchizedek. Apart from this one brief but wonderful interview (Gen. 14: 18–20) the recorded history of Abraham gives the impression of a godly man working his way for the most part alone, amid godless people on every hand—alone save as the Lord testifies of him—“I know him that he will command his children and his household after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment” (Gen. 18: 19).——The case of Melchizedek, “a priest of the Most High God” and also “king of Salem”—a man so venerable in piety, in personal presence apparently, in power and in years, that even Abraham received his blessing and “gave him tithes of all”—this is the one sole bright spot on the otherwise dark religious life of the world as known through the history of Abraham. We marvel that Abraham, so far as appears, never met Melchizedek before and never saw him again. It seems strange that two such men, so kindred in character and spirit, each almost alone breasting the strong currents of prevailing wickedness, should not have formed at least an infant Christian Association to stand by each other and bring their joint light to a common focus in the midst of the world’s deep and far spreading moral darkness. But God had a certain great plan to bring out with Abraham and his own way of doing it. It is plain there was need of this new plan. The cause of piety and truth was in peril and called for some “new departure”—some yet untried method and power. The world was waiting for some Abraham—i. e. for just the system of which the great and godly Abraham was the prominent figure and the historic representative.
The patent points in this new system, put in briefest words, were—Abraham the head of a great family; the founder of a great nation; the representative of the family covenant and its first and illustrious exemplar; the progenitor of the Great, long-promised Messiah; and coupled with his lineal posterity, the repositories of God’s truth and promises—his offspring, the people with whom God dwelt and was publicly worshiped for ages in the presence of the idolatrous nations of the earth; over whom God became their visible earthly Sovereign, their recognized King and God.——Thus the Lord laid the foundation for progressive manifestations of himself and for a growing development of religious truth and of its legitimate forces from age to age till the Messiah should appear.
Plainly we may recognize among the divine purposes in this new system,
1. In general—to conserve, concentrate, augment and perpetuate the religious and moral forces of revealed truth.
2. In particular:
(1.) To utilize all the best elements of the family relation, turning to fullest account parental care and affection and the facilities furnished by nature to parents for the training and culture of their offspring. The germinal idea of this great family covenant lies in the promise, so often reiterated—“I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee” (Gen. 17: 7, 10, 19). A marvellous wealth of significance lies in these brief words; for what can be more rich and all-embracing than this—“I will be a God to thee”—thy God; all that a God can become to man made in his image; his loving Friend, his “Shield and exceeding great reward”; his hope and joy and trust; and to crown all, his glorious salvation! Surely this cup of blessings is rich and full enough to meet the largest wants of any individual human heart. But when man becomes a father—when woman becomes a mother—a new love is born in the soul and new wants are thence begotten, for the parental heart instinctively cries out as the heart of Abraham did—“O that Ishmael might live before thee”! Even so—responds the great parental heart of God—I know the heart of a parent; therefore I said “I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee”; not to thee alone but to thee, and also, not less, to thy beloved offspring besides.
The one comprehensive condition for the fulfillment of this great promise is briefly indicated in the case of Abraham, of whom God said—“I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him” (Gen. 18: 19). The Lord knew that Abraham would fulfill the conditions so conscientiously and well that he could fulfill his promise. The conditions are thus incidentally brought out—viz. parental fidelity and authority; the early culture and training of his household; consecration, the prayer and the faith which are legitimately begotten of this covenant and naturally correlated to it;—these are obviously the fitting conditions upon which the fulfillment of this covenant on God’s part must depend.——But, O, the wealth of blessings garnered up within its bosom for those who walk in the steps of Abraham with like precious faith and like godly nurture! How wonderfully does piety become self-perpetuating in the family line from generation to generation of those who take this covenant to their inmost heart and find God in it ever faithful and ever true and evermore “mighty to save” as he hath said!
Here, strange to say, some good men would thrust in a peremptory limitation, asserting that this family covenant is Abrahamic and Jewish only; good for them, but not good for the Christian age; good in the national but not in the family sense and application thereof.——But what is the logic of such a limitation? Was the love of parent for offspring lost out of the human heart at the coming of Christ? Or did the Lord forget at that point how deeply he had implanted this love in human bosoms? Or did he think that piety, under the improved auspices of the gospel age, could thrive without the help of this family covenant? Or did he reason thus—that the gospel age having the advantage of the Jewish in so many points, could afford to forego this family promise, and yet not on the whole fall below the Abrahamic dispensation?——Or in another point of view, looking at the evidence rather historically than logically, it is claimed, as I understand the argument, that Christ did not renew the promise—“A God to thee and to thy seed after thee”; and therefore it did not pass over into the gospel age.——To which I reply; The real question is—not, Did Christ renew? but, Did he annul? Did he say—I have come to make void the law, not to fulfill? Did he say—That family covenant which the patriarchs loved so dearly, in the faith of which they trained their sons and daughters into the love and service of their fathers’ God, has well done its work and can stand no longer? Did he labor to reconcile the parental heart of his Jewish disciples—loving their dear little ones so tenderly—to this sudden withdrawal of divine promise—to this sore bereavement of hope and slaughter of faith? Was this what he meant when he said; “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven”? Or was this the meaning of Peter when in the first Pentecostal sermon he proclaimed—“The promise (of the Holy Ghost) is to you and to your children” (Ac. 2: 39)? Or could this have been the purpose of Paul when he testified; “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3: 29)?——The proof that the gospel age ruled out the great family covenant is by no means apparent.——It should be considered that the covenant is one thing; circumcision another. The covenant does not of necessity die because circumcision is discontinued. The covenant existed before circumcision and could be operative without it; indeed could live without any visible sign or seal, if so the Lord pleased.——Nor does the perpetuity of this covenant turn on the proof that baptism takes in all respects the place of circumcision. Whether it does fill the same place or does not, the covenant standeth sure. There is value in an external rite or seal—else God had never enjoined it. But it falls exceedingly far short of being the thing of chief value.
Into the argument respecting the change from the old seal to a new one, it is not in place here to enter.
This class of moral sentiments and social affections looks forward in the line of human generations from parent to offspring. Another class of no small value looks back reverently, not to say proudly, to honored ancestors. Here also Abraham’s name became a positive power upon his posterity—not indeed of the very highest efficiency—not altogether proof against being corrupted to the pampering of national pride and even of personal self-righteousness, for bad men might learn to say, “We have Abraham for our father.” Yet still it can not be questioned that for long ages the name and history of Abraham bore the precious savor of his faith and of his staunch fidelity as the servant of the living God. It was the prestige of a name both great and good, and served to perpetuate his piety among millions of his offspring. In this direction all those qualities in Abraham which made him truly great as well as eminently good become elements in this new scheme for augmenting the spiritual and moral forces of God’s kingdom among men.——It can not be amiss, therefore, to linger here a moment and study this wonderful man. Verily the Lord found the right man for his purposes in Abram, then living in “Ur of the Chaldees.” He called him to leave kindred (save the few who joined him in this migration); to leave also all there was to him in country—the land of his fathers’ sepulchers; and travel several hundred miles to a strange unknown land. Abram heard and recognized God’s voice; he bowed to his authority and went. This first recorded illustration of his faith in God and obedience made its impression upon future ages—as we may see in the words of Joshua (24: 2, 3); of Nehemiah (9: 7, 8); of Stephen (Acts 7: 2–5); and of the writer to the Hebrews (11: 8–10)—which last may be taken as a specimen of all. “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.”
Not a little might be said of many of the lesser yet really noble qualities of Abraham’s character—how magnanimous he appears in his bearing toward Lot (Gen. 13: 5–9); how dignified before the sons of Heth (Gen. 23: 3–16); how hospitable in entertaining three strangers who came up as he sat in his tent door in the heat of the day (Gen. 18: 1–16) when he “entertained angels unawares” (Heb. 13: 2); how humble, reverent yet earnest in his intercession for Sodom (Gen. 18: 23–33); how fearless, daring and wonderfully efficient in the rescue of Lot from the plundering hordes of the East (Gen. 14: 13–24); how unselfish in refusing to participate in the recovered booty:—but all these qualities fade like stars before the sun when seen in the presence of his wonderful faith and unflinching obedience to the commands of the Lord his God.
The most signal manifestations of his faith and obedience cluster about three several points in his history; viz. his call to go forth from his ancestral home and country; his waiting twenty-five years for the birth of his one son of promise; and the command to offer this only son in sacrifice.
That first call revealed the man. It was but to hear God’s voice; and forthwith he “conferred not with flesh and blood.” He seems not to have paused a moment to question the Lord about the conditions, or to consider the hardships; and he never “looked back.”
Next that promise of a son, standing so long unfulfilled; year by year the human probabilities fading, dying out, till at length they are utterly dead, and nothing remained save the naked promise! This was indeed training Abraham’s faith to wait. Inasmuch as God’s chosen plan of introducing the Messiah involved long ages of waiting and trusting and living on simple promise, this was by no means a profitless or uncalled for illustration of the nature, the value, and the power of faith as in man toward God.
High above either of these cases, in point of the fierceness of the trial and the wonderful spirit of calm and steadfast faith and endurance, stands the case of God’s command and his consent to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22). The record puts this case in the foreground as to trial: “God did tempt Abraham”—not in the sinful sense—tempting to make him sin; but in a sense appropriate to God—subject him to a terribly searching trial. First, God called him by name “Abraham”! Then said—“Take now thy son, thine only son”—that son of promise in whom all thy hopes and all thy heart’s affections have been so long concentrated—that son “whom thou lovest”—take him and go, far away three days’ journey to a mountain which I will point out, and there “offer him up for a burnt-offering”!
Was Abraham shocked? Did he stagger under this stunning blow? Did he pause to debate the matter with God? Did he beg that the awful agony might be at least delayed till he could collect himself and prepare for a trial so unexpected, so sudden, so terrible to bear? The record gives no hint of any thing of the sort. Abraham had heard God’s voice many times before and could not have had the first doubt as to its identity. If the least doubt had crossed his mind he surely would have said—“Lord, this seems so unlike Thee: Is it not Satan, thine enemy? I can not move one step until I know of a certainty that this is thine own voice.”——But there was no relief in this direction. Yet we almost instinctively ask—Did not Abraham expostulate? Did he not say—O my Lord, this Isaac is the son of thine own promise, my only hope for that great and long promised posterity; and what wilt thou do for thy truth? Besides, the deed is so shocking, so revolting to a father’s heart! Moreover, hast thou not said—“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed”? And what an example this will be before all the tribes of the earth! How it will encourage them on to murder their children in sacrifice to their gods!
We can readily make up what may seem to us very strong arguments against obedience to such a command; but it does not appear that Abraham whispered in his heart the first one of them. The only hint we have of his deep thoughts in the case comes through the writer to the Hebrew Christians—“Accounting that God was able to raise him up even from the dead.” Plainly the Lord meant to show that his command when made known unquestionably is to be obeyed without debate—with no misgivings, no faltering, no fear. So Abraham moved firmly on, saying not a word to Sarah, keeping his counsel even from his two chosen servants and from his son; holding the strange secret in his solitary—shall we say, sad bosom?——No; for there is not the first note of sadness throughout this wonderful transaction. Look at those three days of ongoing journey. Ah, was not this a long time to think over the strange deed! And those intervening nights—was there any sleep to his eyes while this terrible suspense lay still between the command and its execution?——So far as appears Abraham moved on with unshaken fortitude and undisturbed calmness. Certain it is that he never lost his self-possession, for he continued to plan carefully and even sharply against disturbing influences. He could not trust his servants to stand by; so he halted them at a distance back from the scene. He kept the awful secret from his son Isaac until he had him bound and laid on the altar and the uplifted blade was ready to fall!
This was the obedience of faith! The wonderful illustration stands out before all the ages with God’s seal of approbation broadly stamped upon it.——When the trial had fully reached its culminating point and no room remained for doubt that Abraham would obey God at every cost, fearless of consequences, or rather committing all consequences to his God, then God’s angel interposed! A ram was provided for the sacrifice and the son of promise went back to a more happy home with a more happy father, doubly blessed in the renewed approbation of his covenant-keeping God. No wonder that God proceeded then to make that covenant stronger and broader and richer than ever before! No wonder Abraham stamped into the very name of this ever memorable locality one of the grand moral lessons of the scene—“Jehovah Jireh”—In the mount of the Lord, himself will provide! When you come to the mount of last and utmost emergency, the Lord will have salvation ready! His angel will appear; the ram of sacrifice will be there; and Isaac may go in peace!
According to the common law of Christian experience, God’s methods with Abraham were progressive; his manifestations of himself moved on by successive stages; much this year but more the next; so much indeed at the first that it must have seemed to the good man very great, but more and greater were yet to come. The successive epochs at which God appeared to Abraham to talk with him of the great covenant are very distinctly marked in the history—of such sort as many a Christian might record in his own personal life-history.
1. In the outset of Abraham’s history is that eventful call which brought him out from “Ur of the Chaldees,” the narrative of which stands Gen. 12: 1–3. In the promise made to him then the leading points were—“I will make thy name great”; “I will make of thee a great nation”; “thou shalt be a blessing and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed”; I will stand by thee to bless all who bless thee and to curse whosoever may curse thee.——This must have raised in Abram’s mind large expectations and assured him that Jehovah was indeed his own God.
2. Immediately after Abram’s arrival in Canaan (Gen. 12: 7) the Lord appeared to him specially to identify that as the land which he had promised (Gen. 12: 1) to show him and to give to his posterity. There, as in each new home, Abram built an altar and in devout worship called on the name of the Lord who had thus appeared to him.
3. Next, after his magnanimous bearing toward Lot (13: 7–9, 14–18) in which he seemed ready to waive all claim to any territory Lot might choose to occupy. The Lord bade him lift up his eyes toward every point of the compass, all round about and reiterated his grant of the whole—“All the land which thou seest to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever.” Also, that his seed should be as the dust of the earth. His generous magnanimity toward Lot in nowise damaged his standing with God or his rights in the goodly land of promise.
4. A yet richer scene of divine manifestation followed Abram’s rescue of Lot from the plundering horde of the great Eastern kings (Gen. 15). The first words were significant and precious: “Fear not, Abram; I am thy shield and thine exceeding great reward.” Abram knew enough of human nature and of the resentful, lawless spirit of those warlike kings to see that he was exposed to their vengeance and that they might return any day with more military force than his household could muster. It was therefore at once timely and kind in the Lord to meet him at this point with this comforting assurance: “Fear not; I am thy shield”; I stand between thee and those vengeful foes: my strong arm shall be a wall of fire round about thee. Moreover Abram had nobly refused to appropriate to his personal use even a thread or a shoe-latchet of the booty brought back from his routed enemies—whereupon the Lord said, “I will be thine exceeding great reward.”——Truly when a man’s ways please the Lord, he not only keeps his enemies at peace with him but makes all things go well.——On this re-appearance the Lord promised him a son more distinctly than ever before, and posterity as the stars in number. Here it is said definitely—“Abraham believed God and God counted it to him for righteousness.” His faith pleased God, and because of it, God accepted him and he stood as one who is “all right before God.”——Remarkably the Lord at this time identified himself to Abraham as the same God who had appeared to him in his fatherland and called him forth into Canaan and said, This is the very land I then promised to give thee; to which Abraham replied (v. 8), “Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it”? At once the Lord proceeded to ratify his covenant in the usual Oriental manner. A heifer, a she-goat and a ram—one from each species commonly used in sacrifice—are brought forward; each is cut into two parts; the parts are laid asunder; a turtle-dove and a young pigeon, also used for sacrifice in certain contingencies, were added but not cut in two. Then when night came on, a deep sleep fell upon Abraham and the Lord gave him in vision certain prophetic views of his posterity; and ratified the covenant by passing (in the symbol of fire and smoke) between the severed parts of the sacrificial animals. Of this method of ratifying covenants we have historical traces in Jer. 34: 18–20. We have also early and decisive indications of the same mode in the fact that at least in the Hebrew, Greek and Latin tongues the word for ratifying a covenant means primarily to cut. The phrase is, to cut a covenant. The prominent thing in the transaction was the cutting of the animal in twain that the contracting parties might pass solemnly between the parts of it. It seems to be assumed that the contracting parties virtually imprecated upon themselves a like doom if they proved faithless to their covenant.
5. At the next eventful appearance Abraham had been waiting in faith for the son of promise a quarter of a century and was perhaps tempted to think the fulfillment fast becoming impossible. Pertinently therefore the first words of the Lord were—“I am the Almighty God! Walk before me and be thou perfect”; fear nothing; my covenant stands fast. I will multiply thee exceedingly! Abraham fell on his face and God talked with him, reiterating his promise of posterity, giving unwonted prominence to the family feature of his covenant—“a God to thee and to thy seed after thee”—and instituting the rite of circumcision.
6. The sixth and last recorded appearance followed the triumph of Abraham’s faith in the sacrifice of his only son. In this the Lord re-affirmed the great elements of his promise—posterity as the stars of heaven; triumphant over their enemies; a blessing to all the nations of the earth.——Thus at successive and somewhat remote intervals and mostly on special occasions the Lord manifested himself to his servant to confirm his faith, to enlarge the range of promise and to signify his pleasure in the obedient trustful life of his friend.
Such is the religious history of Abraham as related to his covenant God. Corresponding to this is the history of his posterity, the Hebrew nation. To them as to their patriarchal father God manifested himself through long ages, at successive points, e. g. in their Egypt life; in his uplifted arm over Pharaoh to bring them forth in the memorable Exodus; at the Red Sea; at Sinai; all through their wilderness life; at the Jordan crossing; in the conquest of Canaan, and onward, onward, till the coming at length of that greater Seed of Abraham in whom most signally were all the nations of the earth to be blessed. But to the details of this latter history we must give more definite attention in their place and order.
One other special feature in the great covenant with Abraham should be noticed.
In many respects this covenant made Abraham and his posterity a peculiar people, discriminating broadly between them and every other nation, and accumulating the blessings of God upon them in no stinted measure. It might be apprehended that such exclusiveness would beget bigotry, national pride and self-righteousness; but, with wisest forethought, the Lord put into this covenant one counteracting element of great power, viz. that he ordained them to be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. “In thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” It was never the thought of God that the Hebrew people should live to themselves and for themselves—should garner their own store-house full of heavenly blessings and leave all other peoples to shift for themselves as best they might. No; God’s plan contemplated the culture in their souls of the broadest benevolence, and this, pressed into service by a sense of largest responsibility to meet the revealed purposes of God as to their work. Into this great system which made them his peculiar people, he put, openly and clearly, the germinal idea of a salvation to be provided for the wide world—this covenant people to be the almoners of all these blessings to the otherwise benighted and perishing nations. Properly understood and duly regarded, this germinal idea would have developed in their hearts and lives the true missionary spirit, would have given at once both breadth and depth to their piety, would have made them feel that God had great thoughts of mercy for the whole race of man, and had honored them as his ministers in giving this salvation to every creature. At the very least here was opened a thoroughly rich field for prayer, the broadest scope for real sympathy with the benevolence of the Great Father of all the nations and a powerful antidote against the narrow exclusiveness which might otherwise have shrunk and shriveled their piety and narrowed their aspirations to themselves and their land. How often in the heart of the good men of later times—the men like Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah,—must the kindling thought have been sprung by this great germinal promise—When shall these things be? When shall the full fruitage of these great promises be realized? What have we to do to hasten the coming of that sublime consummation?
It remains to speak more definitely of the promises made to Abraham as including the great Messiah.
In this as in most other Messianic prophecies, the argument is threefold;
(1) The language obviously admits the Messiah, i. e. may be construed without violence to apply to him, or at least to include him:
(2) Its meaning is so broad that it must include him; the blessings are too great to be supposed possible without him—apart from him: and
(3) The inspired writers of the New Testament found the Messiah in this prophecy.
The substance of the prophecy is in the words—“In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 22: 18 and 26: 4). Beyond question this may include the Messiah as the author of these really universal blessings—blessings for all the nations of the earth. Nay more; the blessings are too great, too broad, too far reaching to admit any supposable interpretation short of the Messiah and the gospel age. Historically no fulfillment less broad than the Christian can possibly be made out. In Christ and in him only can this prediction be fulfilled.
And to crown all, our Lord himself testifies; “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad” (Jno. 8: 56). It may be noticed that the word used by our Lord was not me, my person; but “my day”—the gospel age; the great events of it; the wonderful results of my coming—which is no doubt the exact truth. It was rather what was to be achieved by Christ in the way of blessings upon all the nations than what lay in Christ’s person definitely that Abraham prophetically saw.
Paul adds his testimony that these words refer to Christ; (a.) Affirming (Gal. 3: 8)—“The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations [‘heathen’] through faith, preached before the gospel to Abraham, saying, ‘In thee shall all nations be blessed.’” “Preached before” is simply predicted, revealed by prophecy, with the accessory idea that the thing revealed was the gospel, the news of salvation.——(b.) To show that in his view the burden and fullness of this prophecy are Christ and nothing less or other than Christ, he says in this connection (v. 16); “Now to Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. He saith not—And to seeds as of many, but as of one—And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
Waiving any special effort to justify Paul’s argument from the singular number of the word “seed,” his testimony is certainly valid to the point for which I have adduced it, viz. that Paul saw Christ in this prophecy. How much soever the principles of exegesis may reluctate, they certainly will not deny that he interprets the prophecy concerning Christ. Their complaint would be that he ties it down to Christ too exclusively.
It must be held therefore that the promises made to Abraham really include a prophecy of Christ. We could not infer from the record in Genesis how well Abraham understood the reference to the Messiah. But the allusions to this point in the New Testament give us light, our Savior most distinctly declaring—Abraham rejoiced that he might see my day; he saw it—with great joy. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, speaking of Abraham and the patriarchs as not having received the promised blessings but as seeing them from afar and embracing them, has in mind specially their faith in the promised heavenly city (Heb. 11: 10, 13, 14, 16), yet not to the exclusion of him who prepares those mansions for his people (Jno. 14: 2, 3). His testimony is in point to show that Abraham looked beyond the earthly side of those blessings to the heavenly; rested not in the earthly Canaan, not in the multitude of his lineal sons and daughters; but reached out beyond these to the city that hath eternal foundations and to the blessings of the Great Messiah, good for all the nations of the earth. The nearer and lesser blessings had a power of suggestion, lifting his thought to the more remote and greater. A man who talked with God so intimately can not be supposed to have missed these grand ideas of the gospel age and of the heavenly state which we are sometimes wont to regard as the special, not to say exclusive, revelations of the New Testament.
Sodom and Gomorrah.
Involved in this history of Abraham, there occurs this ever memorable case of sudden and most fearful judgment upon the ungodly in this world—the overthrow of the cities of the plain. Sodom and Gomorrah only are mentioned by name in Gen. 13: 10 and 19: 24, 28); in several cases for brevity, Sodom only; but Moses (Deut. 20: 23) and Hosea (11: 8) speak of Admah and Zeboim as also overthrown. These were contiguous and (in Gen. 14: 2) confederate cities. The narrative sets forth their appalling and absolutely universal wickedness. Other references suggest the causes or occasions (Ezek. 16: 49, 50), and intimate that the better life and the reproving testimony of Lot were powerless (2 Pet. 2: 7, 8).
The narrative also makes prominent the immediate agency of God in this destruction. “The Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven” (Gen. 19: 24). “When Abraham looked toward Sodom and all the land of the plain, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a great furnace” (v. 28).
The case became for all future time a standard illustration of God’s most sudden, fearful and utter destruction of the wicked. (See Deut. 29: 23 and Isa. 13: 19 and Jer. 20: 16 and 50: 40 and Amos. 4: 11 and 2 Pet. 2: 6 and Jude 7.) It classes itself naturally with the deluge of Noah’s time and with the fall of Pharaoh’s host in the Red Sea, and the swallowing up of Korah and his company in the wilderness—all combining to show that God never lacks the means or the power to begin his threatened retribution upon the wicked here in time whenever he deems it wise for the moral ends of warning.
The question of secondary agencies is of altogether secondary importance. It may well suffice us that God’s hand was there. It matters but little whether he made use of the agencies of the natural world—lightning and the combustible materials of that locality, or otherwise. That these natural agencies were employed is perhaps probable.——The locality of those cities is undoubtedly identified, viz. at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, now and for many ages submerged though in quite shallow water. The adjacent soil affords bitumen and other inflammable substances in abundance, indicating with great probability that a prodigious discharge of electricity ignited the whole region, fire from the Lord out of heaven gleaming and crashing; the atmosphere all ablaze with flames and the very ground on which the city stood burning with terrible fury. It might seem that the deep moral pollutions of its people had doomed that vast plain to be first purified by fire and then sunk from human view for all the coming ages by its subsidence beneath the waters of the Dead Sea.——In view of this appalling scene, how terribly significant become the words of Jude—“Set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire”! How easily and yet how fearfully can the Almighty execute the judgments written against guilty sinners who scorn his words of warning and dare his vengeance!
“The Angel of the Lord.”
Cases occur in Old Testament history in which the Lord appears in visible form and is called interchangeably “the Lord” and “the Angel of the Lord.” See the personal history of Hagar (Gen. 16: 7, 13); of Abraham (Gen. 18: 2, 16, 33 and 22: 11, 15–18); of Jacob (Gen. 31: 11–13, 16); of Moses (Exod. 3: 2, 4, 6, 7, etc., and 23: 20–23); of Gideon (Judg. 6: 11, 12, 14, 20–23) and of Manoah (Judg. 13: 18, 22). The term “angel” means in general a messenger; but is manifestly applied and therefore is applicable to the visible manifestations of God himself, supposably of the second person of the Godhead, i. e. God as made manifest to mortals. The cases above referred to are entirely decisive as to the usage of the phrase, “The Angel of the Lord” in some cases (not relatively many) to denote the very Presence of the Lord himself coming down to reveal himself to his people. In Gen. 18: first three men appear before Abraham; he entertains them. Two of them go on toward Sodom; one remains talking with Abraham. It is said “Abraham stood yet before the Lord”; then drew near and offered that remarkable prayer of intercession for Sodom; after which “the Lord went his way and Abraham returned to his place.”——In Gen. 22, when Abraham had stretched forth his hand to slay his son, “the angel of the Lord called to him out of heaven.” Shortly after (vs. 15–18) “the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord; etc.... Because thou hast obeyed my voice.” This can be no other than the very God.——The passages above referred to from the history of Moses are striking. In Exod. 23: 20–23 we read: “Behold I send an angel before thee to keep thee in the way and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him” (i. e. not to offend him) “and obey his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him”—name, as usual in the sense of the very qualities of character of which the name is a significant indication.